On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 11:24 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said: > > Essentially, when closing this bug as UPSTREAM, we are communicating to > > our users "This will get fixed. Probably. And it will get pulled into > > Fedora eventually. Probably." Most people, when they can actually be > > convinced to file a real bug report (even through ABRT), are doing so > > because they have an issue with the software and want to know when it's > > fixed. > > > > Closing things upstream requires that the reporters (who already likely > > had to be coaxed to file a bug in the first place) now also have to > > manually choose to go and create an account on an unrelated bug tracker > > if they want to follow along on the resolution of the issue. > > In some cases, this *is* the most appropriate resolution, though. For > example, I get the occasional RFE, or request for a behavior/appearance > change, or even for some bugfix that requires rewriting an entire subsystem > of a package. > > In that case, I will likely open up a bug upstream, and close the Fedora > bug, because it is really not up to me at all when, or *if*, such a bug gets > fixed; as a downstream maintainer, I'm not going to put changes of that sort > into Fedora alone, and upstream may very well decide not to do it. > > For the hypothetical bug I might get of 'port GnuCash to GTK 3', I don't see > why a simple CLOSED->UPSTREAM is wrong. (Unless you'd prefer > CLOSED->WONTFIX, as I'm not fixing that myself...)
I'm suggesting that I'd prefer opening the bug upstream, setting this bug to ASSIGNED and then waiting to see what happens upstream. If upstream says they won't fix it, close it WONTFIX. If upstream is going to fix it, leave it open until a Fedora package is available that does fix it, then you can list it in the Bodhi update.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
